Talk:Trademark policy: Difference between revisions

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
rolling back comments archived today for now
m Reverted edits by 2405:204:830E:659A:0:0:1133:8B0 (talk) to last revision by Syunsyunminmin: purely nonsense content
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MovedToFoundationGovWiki|1=Policy talk:Trademark policy}}
{{Archive box non-auto|
* [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archives|Archives]]
}}
===What's new?===
For easy overview of the changes proposed in the new draft, we have prepared a table comparing the new draft to the current trademark policy (2009 policy). Please note that this table doesn't necessarily reflect our current practice, which is sometimes more liberal that the language of the 2009 policy to facilitate community uses of the trademarks. But we need to update the language of the 2009 policy to match our practice and better reflect community values. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


{{collapse top|Comparison table}}
{{:Trademark_comparison_chart}}
{{collapse bottom}}

<br>

===Discussion about section 1 (What does this policy apply to?) ===
{{collapse top|1 What does this policy apply to?}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_1}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:

===Discussion about section 2 (How to use the Wikimedia marks) ===
{{collapse top|2 How to use the Wikimedia marks}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_2}}
{{collapse bottom}}

Discussion:

===Discussion about section 3 (When you may use the Wikimedia marks without asking us)===
{{collapse top|3 When you may use the Wikimedia marks without asking us}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_3}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:

==== Links to Wikimedia sites ====

''3.6 Links to Wikimedia sites<br/>You may use the marks on your own website as a hyperlink to the Wikimedia sites. The use of logos in hyperlinks should follow the Visual Identity Guidelines. For example, the marks may be resized, but not modified in any other way.'' YMMD. [[User:Syrcro|Syrcro]] ([[User talk:Syrcro|talk]]) 10:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
:Replied to the same point in German [[:de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Entwurf_der_neuen_WMF-Markenrichtlinie_ver.C3.B6ffentlicht|here]]. Regards, [[User:Tbayer (WMF)|Tbayer (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Tbayer (WMF)|talk]]) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
::Before closing 3.6, please see the section [[#Use of marks in conjunction with QR codes|Use of marks in conjunction with QR codes]] below. Thanks. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


=====Free as in beer for a piece of cake =====
: If I wanted to make and sell a cake that had a bunch of art on it (e.g., [http://beta.img.cbsnews.com/i/2011/08/10/5ddd2a07-a643-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/BROWSER_WARS.jpg browser wars] or something), and include a small WMF logo ''that was not the main focus of the cake's decorations'', then I would like to have the free-as-in-beer right to do so. As I read it, I think such a use is prohibited. (I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere; I searched the page and didn't find anything that discussed this possible use) For &sect; 3.17, 3.19-.24, I would like to see something similar to the license for "icon" or "graphics" collections one finds around the net:
:: One is permitted to use whatever logo in any product ''for sale'' as long as:
<blockquote>
# The logo is not the '''largest''' graphic element in the work,
# The logo/WMF is not the '''subject''' of the work,
# The logo is not the '''only''' graphic element in the work,
# The work must not promote or endorse illegal or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patently_offensive patently offensive] acts (as defined by <small>__insert legal jargon here__</small>),
# The work must not imply '''endorsement or affiliation''' with WMF in any way, and
# (optional) The work includes the words "_____ logo courtesy of Wikimedia Foundation" or their translation
</blockquote>
: Summed up: you can't sell WMF stuff unless it is a small part of your stuff; don't use our stuff on stuff that will make us look bad; don't lie and tell anyone we're best friends; kindly give credit where credit is due.
: &mdash; [[User:Safety Cap|Safety Cap]] ([[User talk:Safety Cap|talk]]) 18:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
: {{ping|Safety Cap}} We don't explicitly talk about this sort of use case, but like other commercial uses, someone trying to do this could reach out to us under Sec. 4.6 and get a license. There are a few reasons we don't think it is a good idea to include an explicit section covering this sort of thing:
:* none of us can remember ever seeing any requests for anything like this;
:* if we included six-point tests for every speculative use, the policy would quickly grow very, very long, which has a real cost to people trying to understand the policy;
:* in practice some of these uses will be permitted under other aspects of the policy, like nominative use; and
:* if someone wants to do this in a serious way, and are significantly concerned, there is a pretty low barrier to getting a license under 4.6.
: Like I said to 74 above, if we do start seeing a lot of requests of this sort, we can clarify or update the policy as necessary, but until then, it seems premature. —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 22:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

====Use of marks in conjunction with QR codes====
The draft policy mentions [[w:QRpedia|QRpedia]], but only in the FAQ and then not very clearly. Following the acquisition of the QRpedia IP by [[:WMUK:WMUK|WMUK]] last month, for free use by the community, we expect [[w:QR code|QR Codes]] to become much more widely used on signs and printed materials to provide a quick and easy way for a user with a smartphone to go straight to a Wikipedia encyclopedia article in the appropriate language. In order to encourage wide usage of QRpedia codes, it's important that organizations such as local government bodies, GLAMs or local history societies who want to provide local signs can do so without having to ask specific permission or have to negotiate an individual trademark licence with the Foundation. Many such local bodies or societies are not able to afford lawyers and will shy away from anything that looks even remotely problematic. It's therefore of some practical importance that policy covers this area clearly and with explicit examples.

There are two specific use cases that we hope could be covered: (a) Where the Puzzle Globe or the 'W" mark is embedded within a Wikipedia-directed QR Code (ie is printed or displayed in the centre of such a code); and (b) where the Puzzle Globe or the 'W" mark is printed or displayed immediately adjacent such a code. Such indications of use are needed to reassure users that when they scan the code they will not be taken to a commercial or an advertising site.

May I suggest the addition of a new example, as section 3.6.4 along the following lines:

;3.6.4 Machine-readable codes that direct to Wikimedia websites
You can use the Wikimedia marks to indicate that a machine readable code such as a [[w:QRpedia|QRpedia]] [[w:QR code|QR Code]] or the like serves the sole purpose of directing a scanning device that reads the code straight to a Wikimedia website. You may indicate the purpose of the code by embedding a Wikimedia mark within the code, for example by displaying it in the center of the code, or you may display the Wikimedia mark immediately adjacent the code (but not elsewhere).

--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC) (WMUK Chair)

:Hi [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]]! Thanks for your comment. We are discussing this issue in the legal team and will respond here shortly. Thanks, [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 00:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping|MichaelMaggs}}, thanks for seeking to clarify the policy! The current draft permits free use of unstylized marks with QR codes, without the need to request permission. But a license under Section 4 is needed to use the stylized marks. To further promote the open use of Wikimedia marks by the community, we could modify the current GLAM Quick license to allow community members to use the stylized “W” mark with QR codes and clarify this in Section 4.1.2 of the policy. What do you think about that? [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 05:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

:::Hi {{ping|YWelinder (WMF)}} thanks for looking into this. It's an issue that is becoming increasingly important for GLAMs. You mentioned the the stylized “W” mark, but it's actually the globe logo that the partners of WMUK (and probably others as well) really want to use. That is much better recognised as the indicator of origin for Wikipedia, and I would hope that any policy changes could include that mark as well.

[[File:23100420-Sofia-Zoo-mounted-infoboard Ursus thibetanus (asian black bear).JPG|thumb|right|A noticeboard using the globe mark]]
:::I can understand your legal preference for the Quick license approach as that both allows you to set out specific terms in more detail and also provides you with feedback on where the marks are being used. That seems a good approach in the common current situation where a GLAM or a local government authority wants to put up notices such as the one in the image which include both a QRpedia code and also the globe logo. There are many ways the code and the logo could be positioned, and you might well want to restrict what can be done to avoid for example the mark being mixed up with a lot of extraneous advertising material. That was the reason I had suggested above that the mark should be "''immediately adjacent the code (but not elsewhere)''". Whatever you decide, I think that would work pretty well.

:::I need to push back, though, on the other opinion, of the globe or 'W' mark being displayed/printed in the centre of a QRpedia code. That seems to me to be a different situation where you could allow limited free use without requiring users to sign a licence. As I mentioned, many local government bodies, GLAMs or local history societies are really fearful of anything that looks overtly 'legal' (read ''"OMG, we are going to have to pay a lawyer, get insurance and risk being sued"''). By requiring what is effectively a binding signature by an authorised officer on a legal contract you will be in practice be significantly restricting the extent to which QRpedia codes will actually be used. An official signature is fine for a large, well run and staffed GLAM, but is really scarey for a local history society that is run entirely by volunteers.

:::As I see it, the main purpose of your TM licences are (1) to protect the marks against misuse and (2) to provide you with feedback on where your marks are being used. Where the mark is printed in the centre of a QRpedia code, you can be guaranteed that it is not being misused provided you require that such a code must always send the scanner ''straight'' to a Wikimedia page and not to some external landing page. That can be achieved by some wording such as I suggested. And your need for feedback could be achieved in ways other than asking for a signature on a licence. For example, if WMUK were to undertake to modify the QRpedia software, it should not be difficult to automatically tag all scans that have been made of codes that have one of your marks printed in the centre. That would actually get you better feedback than a simple licence signature as it would provide you with near real-time actual usage data.

:::So, what I would hope is that we could have a new Quick license for the 'associated with QRpedia code' uses, and a new section 3.6.4 for the 'embedded' uses. Suggested new wording:

::::;''3.6.4 Embedding Wikimedia marks within machine-readable codes that direct straight to Wikimedia websites''
::::''To indicate that a machine readable code such as a [[w:QRpedia|QRpedia]] [[w:QR code|QR Code]] or the like serves the sole purpose of directing a scanning device that reads the code straight to a Wikimedia website, you may embed a Wikimedia mark within the code, for example by displaying or printing it in the center of the code. Other uses may be possible by signing a GLAM Quick license.''
:::--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (WMUK Chair)
:::::I just want to say that Michael's points have matched my experience when working with GLAMs too: smaller ones are unlikely to sign any agreement that looks vaguely legalistic - and smaller GLAMs are the ones who really need our support. [[User:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|talk]]) 11:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::I appreciate the concern that small GLAMs are unable to sign complicated legal documents. Unfortunately, licenses are not just there to prevent misuses and provide us with feedback. Failure to license can [[Trademark_policy#trademark-purpose|sometimes result in the loss of a trademark]]. Given that the uses of marks with QR codes would mostly be appearing in a non-community environment, they need to be subject to a license, whether they are embedded in the QR code or not. Having said that, we want to facilitate work that is important to the community. That is why we are designing simplified Quick licenses that are written in plain language, are much shorter than standard trademark licenses, and include an explanatory key on the left side of the document. Hopefully, this format will make it easier for GLAMs to use the marks with QR codes. And when they absolutely want to avoid any document, they will still be able to use the unstylized wordmark.

::::::While we generally need to avoid broad outward-facing uses of the puzzle globe without a standard trademark license (such as for QR codes), I think that we can reconsider that position if it’s something that is important to the community.

::::::Thanks, [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 07:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Hi [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] and [[User:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|Chase me]]!

:::::::I wanted to make sure that your comments were addressed given that this consultation is scheduled to close on January 19. To reflect our discussion here, we have [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy%2FFAQ&diff=7126573&oldid=7126559 deleted FAQ Section 4.4], which stated that the Quick license could not be used for QR codes.

:::::::There is currently only a [[Trademark/License/GLAM|sample Quick license]] and we will prepare more Quick licenses before the final policy is launched on [[Trademark_policy|Foundation wiki]]. When we do that, we will prepare a separate GLAM Quick license for QR codes as we discussed here.

:::::::Thanks, [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for the response. I am rather concerned we were not able to complete our discussions before the nominal closure of the consultation, and I hope it will be possible to finalize this with a short chat. This is indeed important to our community of volunteers, but perhaps most important to the Chapters that are trying to work with small GLAMs for whom a scary signed legal agreement is out of the question. WMUK is particularly concerned to get this right, as we have had many queries about using QRpedia codes since we took ownership of the QRpedia IP. I'd like to discuss if we could the well known legal principle that 'failure to license can result in the loss of a trademark', as it appears you may be restricting that dictum to ''signed'' licences, whereas a licence offered to the world (eg a new section 3.6.4) requiring no signature is just as much a licence as one that has to be signed. Such a licence can perfectly well be used to control use of the marks to avoid unpoliced misuses and hence loss of rights. It's not the signature but the policing that is critical. I will email you tomorrow with a suggestion for a telephone call. We should be able to speak at a detailed legal level as I am by profession a patent attorney. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 23:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (WMUK Chair).

::::::::: Hi [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]], that sounds good. I'm happy set up a call to discuss this. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

===Discussion about section 4 (Special uses that require permission)===
{{collapse top|4 Special uses that require permission}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_4}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:
* See question above[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trademark_policy#Is_the_cake_a_lie.3F] about whether there is a loophole in 3.7 make-your-own-cake-shirt-pamphlet-etc, which allows bypassing the clear language of 4.7 sans-license-you-cannot-sell-cake-shirt-pamphlet-etc. [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
* I believe this shall be replaced by an obligation to announce the use to WMF and an automatic licensing when WMF does not make objections within some period. The GLAM, Outreach and other activities are very important - and on the other hand, they are very demanding. Every volunteer shall be supported to the maximum extent, and he/she should not be asked to discuss anything with WMF if it is not really an issue. I agree it is good for WMF to know about all these activities, so I suggest the obligation to announce such use, but I think the need to ask for the license is another obstacle which can be the last straw to stop the volunteer preparing such an demanding activity. With the announcement obligation, the WMF receives all the information it needs and if it does find someething to object against, the Foundation shall itself make steps to avoid granting the license. --[[User:Okino|Okino]] ([[User talk:Okino|talk]]) 16:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:: Hard to argue with an auto-grant-system, when talking about something like printing a batch of a hundred t-shirts for some wiki-bash, which has to be planned long in advance, no matter what. But a bake-sale? That can be "planned" in advance, by deciding to purchase an extra few cake-mixes while at the grocery store, on the spur of the moment. If there is a "thirty day cooling-off period" before I can hold the bake-sale... prolly there will be no wikipedia cakes at the sale, right?
:: &nbsp; We already have the revocation-clause in 6.2, which can be used preventatively methinks. If the auto-grant-system is a zero-day-waiting period, with an auto-reply-bot that immediately grants all requests by default, then I can definitely sell my wikipedia-themed cakes at my first bake-sale. However, if I get the WMF a lot of bad press, by using sorbitol instead of good old-fashioned WMF-approved sweeteners, they can change the auto-reply-bot to deny my future requests. Maybe it can even be humans answering, piggybacking on OTRS or somesuch. Does this rationale make sense? [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
::: Hello 74, in this hypothetical, if the cakes are sold commercially, then permission (and perhaps a little advance planning) is necessary. It is important to ensure that we can maintain trademark protection that is earned by the Wikimedia community of volunteers. Just as a cross reference, Luis responded to a similar question in a little more detail [[Special:Permalink/6637946#Is_the_cake_a_lie.3F|above]] -- as he explained, this is a point that can be refined after we have a little more information about how people wish to use the marks. Thanks! [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 23:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

*A couple of comments re: Section 4.4: the phrase "... in a publication in a way that is not fair or nominative use ..." is a bit clunky, in part because it's a definition of a negative. How about " ... in a publication that will be sold for profit," or something similar that is clear & unambiguous. (Of course you'll still want to address fair use). Also, in the collapsed section in which you list the information that must be supplied, ask for the price of the publication as well. This will make it clear whether or not the publication will be sold commercially. {{unsigned|68.147.206.120}} 17:59, 5 December 2013‎
:: Hello [[68.147.206.120|68]], [[Wikipedia:Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)|fair]] and [[Wikipedia:Nominative use|nominative use]], under trademark law in the U.S., depends on how the logos are used, not necessarily whether the publication itself is commercial. It's a complicated topic to include in the policy, but hopefully we can make it easier to understand. Do you think this is clearer?
{{Blockquote|You need a trademark license if you want to use a Wikimedia mark in a publication, unless your use qualifies as fair or nominative use under U.S. trademark law or other applicable foreign laws.}}
:: Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::: I [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy&diff=6990138&oldid=6978538 incorporated this change] in the policy. Thanks again! [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 22:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

*In section 4.5 you start with the following sentence: '''"You need a trademark license to use the Wikipedia logo in a movie, TV show episode, or online production."''' which indicates that a license is required per one TV episode. However in consecutive sentences and paragraphs you discuss obtaining the license for a TV show or series. Is the license per episode or for the TV series once and for all? I think this section needs to be rephrased. Thanks for your concern! [[User:Asaifm|Asaifm]] ([[User talk:Asaifm|talk]]) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks for pointing that out, [[User:Asaifm|Asaifm]]. A member of the legal team will respond soon. [[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Asaifm}} Good point. We will clarify section 4.5. A license covers only the episode described in the request. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

===Discussion about section 5 (Prohibited uses)===
{{collapse top|5 Prohibited uses}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_5}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:
* Could someone please clarify "look and feel"? By default, MediaWiki comes with the vector and monobook themes, which most (if not all) WM sites use. Should the downloadable version not have these themes, and are these themes copyrighted non-free? --[[User:WikiLeon|<font color="#cc0000">w</font><font color="#00cc00"><sup>L</sup></font>]]<sup>&lt;[[User talk:WikiLeon|speak]]&middot;[[Special:Contributions/WikiLeon|check]]&gt;</sup> 21:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
** It's fine to use the MediaWiki software as long as you don't combine it with one of our logos or something that is confusingly similar to them. You can read more about that in [[Trademark_policy/FAQ#5.3_How_do_I_avoid_mimicking_Wikimedia_sites_when_I_use_the_Mediawiki_software.3F|FAQ Section 5.3]]. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 01:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
*** The default install includes the MediaWiki logo[http://www.inmotionhosting.com/support/edu/mediawiki/change-media-wiki-appearance/upload-custom-logo-mediawiki], which is covered by this trademark policy, but was [[:File:EloquenceSunflowerBlue-Small.png|a public domain logo]], released into the public domain by [[User:Eloquence]] and [[User:Anthere]] in 2003. Also people have created derivatives of the MediaWiki logo to use for related software or products.[http://www.dotti.at/site/2011/06/13/xexternaleditor-0-7/][https://moodle.org/plugins/view.php?plugin=repository_mediawiki][http://www.blue-spice.org/products/packages/][http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Semantic-MediaWiki-SMW-2482811][http://blogg.loopia.se/2010/01/20/mediawikis-historia/][http://www.scriptol.com/cms/popularity.php][http://www.appatic.com/2010/12/word-to-mediawiki-converter-add-in-for.html][http://www.louiswolf.nl/templates] You'll need to employ lots of lawyers to put this ten year old genie back in the bottle with lots of cease and desist letters. I wouldnt be surprised if the lawyers also feel that use of flowers and square brackets in conjunction with wikis creates confusion, so which adds another set of trademark violations to process, like [http://wikiapiary.com] [http://blogger-hints-and-tips.blogspot.com/2011/07/enabling-blogger-on-google-apps-domains.html] [http://www.kennel17.co.uk/testwiki/WikiDB] [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 05:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

:::: I can't speak for her, but my guess is that Yana was talking about a case like "MediaWiki setup + Wiktionary logo" more than "MediaWiki setup + MediaWiki logo". (For completeness, I should note that while the default install does include the MediaWiki logo, the version that's loaded by default has been [https://git.wikimedia.org/raw/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/84feb57e2f1656d3a0959105d9af9393a0c2ae7e/skins%2Fcommon%2Fimages%2Fwiki.png clearly identified as a placeholder] for some time.) She and I talked a fair bit of the specifics of the MediaWiki logo already, including its public domain status which will definitely be maintained. Thanks for collecting these examples, though; I had promised Yana to send her a bunch of example uses of the MediaWiki logo & mark, and this is a great start. I find none of these concerning in any way, FWIW.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|talk]]) 06:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
::::: G'day Eloquence, [[User:WikiLeon|WikiLeon]] isnt asking about a "MediaWiki setup + Wiktionary logo" setup. They are talking about the packaged default MediaWiki, which includes "look and feel", and trademarked logos. I will also add that some of the new UI redesigns (which are extensions or skin-mods IIRC) use the WMF colours - I havent looked to see if those colours are in the default code - something to check, because if the WMF colours are being redistributed in MediaWiki / MediaWiki extensions written by the WMF, then WMF is promoting the WMF colours=mediawiki site, which means it is harder to win a passing off battle.
::::: It is great to know that you think the use I listed are fine, but where is the section of the trademark policy which states that, even broadly? Apologies if I have missed it.
::::: I mention derivatives of the Community Logo in a section below, but the problem applies to all of the logos, as I'm pretty sure that derivatives of every logo have been created and used offwiki. But the MediaWiki and Community logos are the two most important ones to maximise freedoms for, as they are PD, and represent something which exists beyond the servers owned by the WMF.
::::: Is it ok to use the placeholder (a derivative of a trademarked Wikimedia logo) on a mediawiki powered site? Unlike the 'powered by' logos, the placeholder doesnt link to MediaWiki, so it cant use that exception.
::::: Which section of this policy allows for the derivatives that I have mentioned above. If they need to be registered with WMF before they are used outside the WMF servers, it needs to be clearly said, and we need a request form for people to fill in and send to WMF for approval. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::If the derivatives are not confusing, they don't fall within the trademark protection of a mark. That is why you can, as I mentioned below, use them off wiki without any permission. We'll prepare an FAQ section to clarify this point so that people know that they don’t need to fill out the request form.

::::::I would think that most people understand that a “placeholder” is only in place to show users where to add their own image. But perhaps we can work on making that clearer in the FAQs too.

::::::The uses that you listed are broadly covered by Sections 3.5 and 3.6. As Erik mentioned, we are thinking about how our trademark practice can best serve open source development, so the examples that you listed are indeed very helpful. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 17:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Section 3.5 and 3.6 use the term '[[w:wordmark|wordmark]]'; does that apply to the trademarked logos as well - many of the registered trademarks dont include words at all? [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 02:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::::The use of the term “wordmark” was intentional in Section 3.5 because those sections refer specifically to how people may use wordmarks in their writing or everyday speech. Accordingly, there is no concern individuals will infringe marks that do not include words at all, because merely describing the logo through words is okay. However, we realize that the organization of Section 3.6 is a little confusing and we revised it to make it clear when we are referring to wordmarks and when we are referring to all marks. Thank you so much {{ping|John Vandenberg}} for helping us clarify this section :) [[User:MBrar (WMF)|MBrar (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MBrar (WMF)|talk]]) 01:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::::: Hi [[User:MBrar (WMF)|Manprit]], thanks for confirming that the WMF used wordmark intentionally. In light of that could you and the team return to the question "Which section of this policy allows for the derivatives that I have mentioned above." If it is section 3.5 and 3.6 as Yana asserted, could the team please clarify which part of 3.5 and 3.6 allows for using a derivative of the MediaWiki logo as the logo of a commercial product which relates to MediaWiki? [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 07:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::: Sure! Section 3.6 allows for the derivatives of the MediaWiki logo in the examples you mentioned. Nominative use is a doctrine created and defined by US court decisions, which is reflected in Section 3.6. Instead of simply stating “people have a right to use the marks nominatively under US law,” we thought it would be more useful to identify clear examples of nominative use currently permitted by courts. However, the use permitted under the doctrine requires that you use only as much of the mark as necessary to identify the trademark owner’s product or service associated with the mark. The use of a derivative of the MediaWiki logo as the logo of a commercial product may go beyond the minimal use of a logo permitted by current US law (because you could simply state on your site, “Powered by MediaWiki” rather than including the logo). But, we interpret Section 3.6 broadly to allow people to create MediaWiki logo derivatives when that advances the open source movement because we don’t feel users will be confused about whether Wikimedia sponsors your commercial product. We did not frame the language of this provision to explicitly allow this because, 1) it is unique to the MediaWiki logo and 2) would go beyond current US law and pose additional legal risks to maintaining the Wikimedia marks. I hope this addresses your question. Please feel free to post if it doesn’t and we can try to clarify :) [[User:MBrar (WMF)|MBrar (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MBrar (WMF)|talk]]) 23:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::Hi [[User:MBrar (WMF)|MBrar (WMF)]] and thank you for your explanation so far. It is nice to know that WMF is feels logos and even logo derivatives are nominative use. I would like to see that approach apply to all of logos, as such nominative use of the other logos would also advance our mission and WMF interpreting the nominative use doctrine in different ways depending on which asset is at stake seems to open a can of worms (as you say: pose additional legal risks), but I'll leave that for another discussion.. ;-) I can see that the WMF's broader interpretation of nominative use ''could'' cover many of the instances I linked to above (such as [http://www.blue-spice.org/products/packages/ these] [https://moodle.org/plugins/view.php?plugin=repository_mediawiki two] derivatives in commercial software), however [http://www.dotti.at/site/2011/06/13/xexternaleditor-0-7/ this] derivative appears to fail every test for nominative use as they are using a derivative of the MediaWiki logo as their own logo. Could you explain how that use falls within the policy? If not under 3.6, perhaps that specific derivative logo is permitted under 3.7 as it is used in a non-commercial setting (i.e. open source). Thank you. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 00:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::Great question! You are right that [http://www.dotti.at/site/2011/06/13/xexternaleditor-0-7/ their] use of a derivative of the MediaWiki logo as their own logo is not a typical nominative use. However, their use does fall under 3.6.3, which allows for non-commercial use of Wikimedia logos because their logo describes how their software builds on MediaWiki software, and lets you work outside of it. Furthermore, they are promoting the open-source movement by improving on the MediaWiki software and not charging for their services (just the type of initiative we like to support!). [[User:MBrar (WMF)|MBrar (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MBrar (WMF)|talk]]) 00:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a question inspired a little bit by FAQ 3.14, point 3. Let's say that I want to create a fork of Wikipedia in my language. I am a "community member" as defined in "3.4 Community logo use to show membership". Let's also say that I have good reasons (IMO) to make this move (eg. I am blocked on Wikipedia in my mother tongue for 3 years for some incoherent reasons like trying to politely persuade admins to change "Bradley" to "Chelsea" and use feminine pronouns in "Bradley Manning" article).
Questions:
* Can I use the Wikipedia logo as a logo of my forked version of Wikipedia?
* Can I use the community logo as a logo of my forked version of Wikipedia?
Thanks in advance for an answer. [[User:BartłomiejB|BartłomiejB]] ([[User talk:BartłomiejB|talk]]) 23:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for your questions, [[User:BartłomiejB|BartłomiejB]]. The legal team will be responding to them shortly. --[[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 17:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::Hi there, [[User:BartłomiejB|BartłomiejB]]! You can always [[Wikipedia:Content_forking#Project-level_forking|create forks of Wikipedia]], so long as you re-use of the content in adherence to the creative commons license terms. But the Wikipedia logo should only be used on the original Wikipedia. Otherwise, people would be confused that the fork is Wikipedia. Likewise, the Community logo should not be used as a logo on the fork because that will make it look like Meta.

::I hope this helps! Just let me know if there is anything more I can elaborate on for you. And thanks for your inquiry! [[User:DRenaud (WMF)|DRenaud (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DRenaud (WMF)|talk]]) 21:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

{{ArchivingSoon}} [[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 01:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

====Section 5 prohibitions trump everything else====
Section 5 prohibits certain uses of the marks, while sections 3 and 4 allow certain uses. For greater practical and legal certainty it would be sensible to make it clear that all of the s3 and s4 permissions are subject to the restrictions of s5. That's clearly intended but does not appear to be explicitly stated. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

:That's a good point. I'll clarify this in Sections 3 and 4. Thanks, [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 07:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

===Discussion about section 6 (Trademark Abuse)===
{{collapse top|6 Trademark Abuse}}
{{:Trademark_policy/Section_6}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:

===Discussion about section 7 (Revision and Translation of the trademark policy)===
{{collapse top|7 Revision and Translation of the trademark policy}}
{{: Trademark_policy/Section_7}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Discussion:
*
*
*
===Discussion about the [[Trademark/License/Hackathon|Quick License]] (formally "Wikilicense") ===
Discussion:

===Discussion about the [[Trademark_policy/FAQ|FAQ]] ===
Discussion:

===Discussion about the [[Trademark/Request_a_license_form|trademark "request a license" form]] ===
Discussion:

===Discussion about the [[Trademark/Report_abuse|violation reporting form]] ===

===Other discussion===
== App icon using modified Wikivoyage logo ==

OxygenGuide is an offline Wikivoyage. Its logo is based on the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Travel_Guide_Logo_-_Proposal_Yiyi.svg (previous) Wikivoyage logo]:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.github.OxygenGuide

Is that OK? It is Open Source, and I am the developer so I can change it if not OK.

More generally, is it OK to use a modified Wikimedia logo as an app icon, if that app is created by the community, dedicated strictly to making the wiki's content more accessible or checking/improving the wiki's content? Thanks! [[User:Nicolas1981|Nicolas1981]] ([[User talk:Nicolas1981|talk]]) 04:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

: Hi Nicolas1981! Thanks for your work on making Wikivoyage content more accessible!

:Generally, our trademark policy does not prevent the use derivatives of Wikimedia logos when they are so distinct from the original that users wouldn't be confused about the source of the app.

:Given that the app is open source and is clearly advancing the Wikimedia mission, you may want to get a license to use the new Wikivoyage logo instead. To request a license, you can email us at trademarks@wikimedia.org. Thanks, [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 05:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
{{ArchivingSoon}} [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

== How will this policy be enforced outside the USA? ==

While reading and translating this policy, I can see what you want to enforce in terms of protection. What puzzles me though is comprehending how will you apply this policy outside the USA especially when there are no laws protecting trademarks in the country of violation. Could you elaborate on what steps are you going to take in such cases? Thanks! [[User:Asaifm|Asaifm]] ([[User talk:Asaifm|talk]]) 21:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

:Appreciate you mentioning this, [[User:Asaifm|Asaifm]]. A member of the legal team will get back to you shortly. [[User:AKoval_(WMF)|Anna Koval (WMF)]] ([[User talk:AKoval (WMF)|talk]]) 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

:: Hi [[User:Asaifm|Asaifm]]! Most countries have trademark protection, though the extent of that protection varies. When we learn of an infringement, we usually try to contact the person in question regardless of where they are located. We do so through a friendly email or letter so that they feel comfortable contacting us. If we are unable to stop the infringement, we usually retain a law firm in that country, which helps us to figure out what our options are under local law. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
{{ArchivingSoon}} [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

== Community logo still mentioned in the policy ==

I've been assured by @[[User:Jalexander|James Alexander]] that, because the new policy will not cover the [[Wikimedia Community Logo|community logo]], every mention of it will be removed before the draft is finalized. Yet, it hasn't been done to this day, and the consultation period appears to have finished ([//blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/19/announcing-wikimedias-new-community-centered-trademark-policy/ blog announcement]). {{ping|YWelinder (WMF)|AKoval (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)|LVilla (WMF) |Slaporte (WMF)}} can you please remove almost all mentions of the community logo from the policy before it is presented for Board of Trustees approval? I'm especially concerned about the parts which say that the new policy allows free use of that logo, because it doesn't.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation&oldid=6650164] I'm also pinging {{ping|Sj|Phoebe|Raystorm}} so that they're aware of this issue and can react before they vote on approving the new draft. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
: Hey [[User:Odder|odder]], I'm going to sleep (and we have a holiday tomorrow) so I am unlikely to respond right away but I'm a bit confused so if you could expand that may help the others answer in case they are as well. The new policy, as I read it, only mentions the Community Logo in a couple places to specifically call out that that it is available for free use ( "This logo can be used freely" , "The Wikimedia Community logo can be used freely." etc) with the only possible restriction being that it says that you shouldn't file a trademark registration for the logo.. which seems to make sense. I imagine that if someone attempted to reserve the mark for their own use (through a TM registration) and therefore taking it away from the community they would want us to defend it, I know I certainly would. I would also want the logo mentioned as it is (in a 'this is free to use' way) rather then not mentioned at all because if it is going to be free to use I think we have a bit of an obligation to make sure people know that instead of hiding it. It's obviously always possible I missed something so if there is a piece that looks different I'd appreciate some expansion. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 12:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
::Hi James, thanks for the fast response. I don't know whether the Foundation is planning to protect the community logo from malicious takeovers; I think someone already asked this question and did not receive an answer. I would certainly ''hope'' and expect the Foundation to act in community's interest should such a situation happen in the future, and would warmly welcome a statement from the legal team saying so.

::As far as this new draft and its summary are considered, they mentioned that the community logo could be freely used as an effect of this new policy, which isn't true, since the logo is not covered by it. I personally don't think the community logo should be mentioned at all in this policy, just like you don't mention the Wiki Loves Monuments logo, the WALRUS logo, or other logos created by the community. To show what I meant, and in a wiki spirit, I removed some mentions of the logo from the policy and the summary ([//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy&diff=prev&oldid=7161736 1], [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy/summary&diff=prev&oldid=7161755 2], [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy/summary&diff=prev&oldid=7161761 3]); please do have a look at those edits. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
::: Wait, you wanted trademark protections removed from the community logo, but now you hope that the legal department will protect it from malicious takeovers? You can't have it both ways. You advocated for opening up the logo, now it's open. Don't go asking for legal interventions now... Anyway, I think you're being unhelpful by removing mentions of it. Do you want people to use the community logo or not? If so, then they have to learn about it somehow. It seems reasonable to assume people will learn about it via the trademark policy. Therefore, it seems like it would be in the best interest of anyone who ''actually wants the community logo to be used'' to leave mentions in there. Your over-interpreting of language is getting in the way of the actual goal here, I think. But, hey, whatever. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: I absolutely can have it both ways, @[[User:Phoebe|Phoebe]]. If the Wikimedia Foundation aims to have the best interest of the community at heart, I think it is only reasonable that they would protect the logo against malicious takeovers should such situation arise. Of course, we at the community are perfectly capable of acting on our own, and the Foundation is not ''required'' for us to be able to effectively protect the logo. [[Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo|Reclaim the Logo]] has proven this beautifully, and if the Foundation does not wish to help the community in this case, I think they should make their stance known — it will definitely make it easier for us and our donors to decide whether it's best to donate money to the WMF or maybe choose a local chapter that is actually supporting the community that creates our projects.

::::I don't think I'm being unhelpful by removing mentions of the logo from the policy. That's just your opinion, and while you are entitled to it, please do notice that I did not remove ''all'' mentions of the community logo from the policy (such as section 3.4), but only those that were either misleading or simply factually incorrect. Also, please take into consideration that this logo isn't covered by the policy, so it doesn't make any sense from a legalese perspective to mention it; as I said before, the draft doesn't mention the logos of Wiki Loves Monuments, WALRUS, etc. But hey, whatever. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 22:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
::::: Well, you did ask me to give my opinion, so I did. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::No worries James, this should make it clear: [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trademark_policy&diff=7162120&oldid=7161736]. And please don't thank me, the past taught me I'd later have to pay you a high price for the honour. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Some recent edits by Philippe seem to imply that something is not clear yet about this matter. Everyone feel free to comment on talk. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:What the fuck is going on ? If the community logo is not trademarked by the Foundation, why should the '''trademark''' policy of the Foundation speak about it ? Or is there any hidden agenda behind this ? I've got to admit that I'm quite pissed at how all this was done... [[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]] ([[User talk:Pleclown|talk]]) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Pleclown}} be polite, please. {{ping|Nemo}} As a board member I don't appreciate last minute editing of the draft; LCA closed the consultation in time for them to submit it to the board, on our calendar, before our meeting; given that, I would like a stable and legal-team approved version to read this week. Everyone had many months to read and consult, and I accept that it will never be perfect; you should too. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
::: Hi Phoebe, thanks for stepping in. I've however no idea what you're talking about, the decision on the community logo (as regards the WMF staff) was taken over 40 days ago, way before the closure of this consultation. Its presence here was either a typo, or some misunderstaing, or a precedence issue on whether the staff should first wait for the board to confirm that they don't want WMF to register the community logo, or instead they can already proceed that way (including in this draft). As you've not yet commented on the issue, perhaps you may want to tell us if you/the board thinks that it takes an amendment to past board resolutions for the community logo not to be registered by WMF, and if yes whether and when the board will discuss the matter, and if yes if it will be decided together with this policy, and if yes where it can be written if not in the policy itself. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: Yes, the matter was brought to us; I don't know if anything's been published yet, I'll have to look. Anyway, no one is arguing with the decision to withdraw trademark registration; that's not in dispute, and mentioning the community logo in the trademark policy doesn't imply that it is. As I noted above, I think mentioning the community logo as one option that is always open to people, in a description in the trademark policy of what people can do with the trademarks and what they can't, is perfectly reasonable. I don't think it's appropriate to keep making substantial edits at this late date, but mostly I certainly don't think it's worth edit warring over. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::: Thanks Phoebe, then we'll wait for info on how you plan to proceed on the matter. I agree that some parts of the page may name the community logo: see also my edit linked above and the comment below, 00:33, 22 January 2014. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 10:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::No, @[[User:Phoebe|Phoebe]]. I've been personally assured by @[[User:Jalexander|James Alexander]] that the legal team were working on re-writing the draft after the closure of the [[Community Logo/Request for consultation|request for consultation]] that they started following our trademark opposition. Perhaps unwisely, I trusted James' assurance and did not look at this draft since — so you can imagine my surprise at seeing the logo still mentioned in it (for instance, "''To further make it easier for community members to use the marks, this policy introduces some creative trademark solutions. For example, community members may freely use the [[:commons:File:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg|Wikimedia Community logo]]''", is just blatantly false), which, of course, resulted in my starting this discussion. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::: Hey [[User:odder|odder]], it appears there may be some misunderstanding about my response to you on that. You asked me if we were going to remove all references to the Community Logo now that it wasn't going to be trademarked. You're right that I said I expected significant changes to be made to the document (and then talked about how it might take a bit of time given everything) but I also said that I expected the lawyers to want "something explicit in there about how 'this logo belongs to the community' too, so that it's obvious to others as well." That seems to be what they've done here. My comment about expecting final changes to take time "as people try to clarify etc" was meant to imply time for anyone within the community who didn't think the changes were clear enough to say so; I was hoping you'd continue to participate in that discussion in case anything was unclear. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]: And I'm cool with that; as I wrote above in response to Phoebe, I'm not removing every mention of the logo from the policy (even though I don't think it should be there), only the parts that were false (see above) or misleading (such as links to a Commons category for community logo derivatives when talking about remixes of trademarked logos). [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::And yet, @[[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe]] just revered my edit, bringing those links back. Let me repeat what I already said: linking to a category with files derived from the community logo—'''which isn't covered by this policy'''–while talking about remixing Wikimedia trademarks is totally misleading. (This is visible in [[Translations:Trademark policy/40/en]] and [[Translations:Trademark policy/50/en]].) Please, please fix it. Thank you. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::::… anyone? [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I have taken another look at this, and I believe it is appropriate for the policy to mention the free use of the community logo, which we have done, for example, in Section 3.4. That logo is the symbol that is on all the Meta-Wiki pages hosted by WMF, so we should explain that the community logo is treated differently from the other Wikimedia marks; as the community consultation showed on the issue, there were differing and strong views on the registration of the mark, so a clear statement in the trademark statement is appropriate to ensure we all move forward on the same page; and, finally, a clear statement will help ensure against any inadvertent registration in the future (after this debate is long forgotten). That said, I will remove the sentence that refers to the community logo in line 73 "(It allows community members to use the Wikimedia marks without a trademark license for Wikimedia community-focused events and outreach work.") since the context of that sentence is subject to different interpretations. We will also post the Wikimedia logo, in lieu of the community logo, in the summary section of the new trademark policy to avoid too much emphasis on the community logo. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Mention the free use, why not. Linking to [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikimedia community logos|remixes of the community logo]] when speaking about remixes of ''trademarked'' logos of the Foundation, no. There is [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikinews logos|plenty]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikiquote logos|others]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikisource logos|remixed]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikimedia Foundation logos|Foundation]] [[:commons:Category:SVG MediaWiki logos|trademarked]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikispecies logos|logos]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikiversity logos|on]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikimedia Commons logos|Commons]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikipedia logos|to]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wikivoyage logos|chose]] [[:commons:Category:SVG Wiktionary logos|from]]. [[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]] ([[User talk:Pleclown|talk]]) 16:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks [[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]]! We have replaced the links. [[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]] ([[User talk:YWelinder (WMF)|talk]]) 00:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks, @[[User:YWelinder (WMF)|YWelinder (WMF)]], this change is greatly appreciated. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 12:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

==Board review edits==

I have done a final review of the trademark policy as we prepare its presentation to the Board for its January 31st meeting. Upon further reflection, to avoid confusion by community members and others, I want to underscore in the policy what we already say in the FAQ (FAQ 3.4) that Wikimedia marks should be used to represent only the projects for which they stand. Therefore, in Section 5.3 of the trademark policy, I am adding the following sentence: "When you use a Wikimedia mark under this policy, please use it to represent only the project for which it stands." Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
: &lt;jocular&gt;<br />...one Foundation under Jimbo, indivisible,...<br />&lt;/jocular&gt; - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]]/<sup>[[User talk:Amgine|meta]] [[wiktionary:User talk:Amgine|wikt]] [[n:User talk:Amgine|wnews]] [http://vanislecirc.wordpress.org blog] [http://standingoffandon.blogspot.com/ wmf-blog] [http://news.google.ca/ goog news]</sup> 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:43, 23 August 2023

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trademark_policy&oldid=25505709"